Wind Turbine Payback in Glacier County, MT
Wind turbine payback in Glacier County
No. The turbine wears out before it pays for itself.
At 30 m, the height a home turbine tower usually reaches, the wind in Glacier County, MT averages 5.52 m/s (12.3 mph). A 10 kW turbine there would make about 16,181 kWh a year, worth $2,286 at MT's 14.13¢/kWh. Against an installed cost of about $100,000, that is a payback of 44 years, and the turbine is built to last about 20.
What to do in Glacier County
A home turbine is not worth buying for savings in Glacier County unless your spot is far windier than the county average, 8.2 m/s at the hub against 5.52 m/s here. Per kW, solar panels would make about 1,115 kWh a year here against the turbine's 1,618, so get a solar quote first.
What would have to change
- Power would have to cost 31¢/kWh, 2.2 times what MT pays now.
- Or the average wind at the hub would have to be 8.2 m/s instead of 5.52. A taller tower or an exposed ridge can add some of that; a rooftop never will.
Against the rest of MT
Glacier County is the 1,207th windiest of 3,144 US counties at turbine height; the national middle is 4.79 m/s. The windiest in MT is Fallon County at 6.64 m/s, payback 29 years.
Month by month in Glacier County
January is the strongest month here, at 6.82 m/s and about 2,189 kWh. August is the weakest, 4.18 m/s and 636 kWh, so the best month makes 3.4 times the worst. November to March brings in 58% of the year's output in Glacier County.
| Month | Wind at 30 m | Output | Worth |
|---|---|---|---|
| January | 6.82 m/s | 2,189 kWh | $309 |
| February | 6.01 m/s | 1,515 kWh | $214 |
| March | 6.04 m/s | 1,700 kWh | $240 |
| April | 5.34 m/s | 1,223 kWh | $173 |
| May | 4.81 m/s | 957 kWh | $135 |
| June | 4.80 m/s | 922 kWh | $130 |
| July | 4.44 m/s | 761 kWh | $108 |
| August | 4.18 m/s | 636 kWh | $90 |
| September | 4.71 m/s | 876 kWh | $124 |
| October | 5.76 m/s | 1,525 kWh | $215 |
| November | 6.73 m/s | 2,061 kWh | $291 |
| December | 6.63 m/s | 2,070 kWh | $292 |
What a taller tower would buy
Measured at 10 m the wind in Glacier County averages 4.07 m/s; at 50 m it is 6.36 m/s. That gives a shear exponent of 0.277, typical of ordinary open country. Going from 20 m to 50 m takes output from 12,094 to 22,373 kWh a year, 85% more, before counting the extra cost of the taller tower. Why tower height decides it explains the shear behind these numbers.
| Hub height | Average wind | Output | Payback |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 m | 4.93 m/s | 12,094 kWh | 59 years |
| 30 m | 5.52 m/s | 16,187 kWh | 44 years |
| 40 m | 5.98 m/s | 19,547 kWh | 36 years |
| 50 m | 6.36 m/s | 22,373 kWh | 32 years |
Counties around Glacier County
2 of the 6 closest counties are windier at turbine height; the windiest, Liberty County, averages 6.21 m/s.
- Pondera County, MT: 5.4 m/s, 15,319 kWh, payback 46 years (48 mi)
- Flathead County, MT: 3.37 m/s, 3,830 kWh, payback over 100 years (56 mi)
- Toole County, MT: 6.17 m/s, 20,965 kWh, payback 34 years (58 mi)
- Teton County, MT: 5.4 m/s, 15,319 kWh, payback 46 years (69 mi)
- Lake County, MT: 2.95 m/s, 2,455 kWh, payback over 100 years (89 mi)
- Liberty County, MT: 6.21 m/s, 21,262 kWh, payback 33 years (90 mi)
Sun versus wind in Glacier County
Glacier County gets 3.82 kWh of sunshine per square metre a day on average. One kW of solar panels here would make roughly 1,115 kWh a year; one kW of the turbine above makes 1,618. This is one of the rare places where a kilowatt of turbine out-produces a kilowatt of panels, by 1.5 times. Panel output assumes an 80% system performance ratio. Wind or solar runs the same comparison for every county.
How this is worked out
Wind is NASA's Power climate record, the 2001-2025 average at 10 m and 50 m for the county's centre, carried to 30 m with this county's own measured wind shear and spread into hours with a Rayleigh distribution. The turbine is a generic 10 kW, 7 m rotor machine with 10% losses. Cost is $10,000 per kW installed with no tax credit, because the federal one ended in 2025. One county-centre number cannot see your hilltop or your tree line, so treat it as the starting point for a site survey, not a substitute. The full method and its weak spots are in how the numbers are made.